January 28, 2010

Isn't it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — is outweighed by one man's headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?

And isn't it ironic that, right when we saw the judge's minimalist expression that overwhelmed the President's torrent of words, Obama was railing about the "powerful interests" that would use their great wealth to speak far too much during election campaigns?

It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?

ADDED: I've changed the word "are" in the "Isn't it fascinating" paragraph to "is" to correct an error that I noticed after the paragraph got quoted in full at Instapundit and Volokh. Do I write to them and ask them to take the trouble to correct my error, or do I just sit here and feel awful about it? The embarrassing clumsiness was caused by changing "lengthy, amplified, magnified words" to "lengthy, amplified, magnified speech," which I did because I didn't like the repetition of the word "words" — which is the kind of writing flaw that is hardly even embarrassing but absorbs my attention.

So the President has his big opportunity to regain his mojo after what has been a disastrous couple of months for him and his Party, and he chooses to use that opportunity to scold and lie. We're dealing with a petty little man here, and he ain't that bright.

Good Lord, the White House is pushing back on this. How dumb are those people? It'll extend the life of the story, piss off the Supreme Court in general, and potentially nudge Justice Kennedy to the right.

The only thing I can think of is he's trying to demonize the current Court in anticipation of filling a few vacancies with some really radical people, but I doubt that's going to be an effective plan.

No, it is not and not even through money. I will give you a different context than the one you give. During the Democratic primary, Hillary got more votes than he did in spite of spending 4 times more than she did. He got trounced in WVa, Kentucky, and other places and even in MA. Money did not do much for him but the party's skulduggery did. He had to be carried through the finish line in the primary and now we are all paying the price for it. I didn't think it all would come crashing down like this so soon.

It has to be incredibly frustrating to be one of the Supreme Court Justices and have to sit like a lump on a log while the President and others tell lies about and distort the meaning of one of the most important decisions that the Court has made in quite some time.

You know what they are saying is blatantly untrue, yet decorum says you must sit there with a stone face.

What the Court did was to give BACK free speech to everyone, including corporations.

I'm starting to feel sorry for the people I hear defending this President. The arguments have been boiled down to: 1) What about what Bush did. 2) Ah, c'mon, give him a chance, he's trying. I usually see Blacks on TV doing this. I feel sorry for them, because that "community" is so politically monolithic, that they seem trapped, unable to break out and say what they know to be true, or to have a differing opinion. Seems part self delusion and part peer pressure. It's sad.

At what time will Hillary smell blood in the water, resign, and then start to mount her challenge.

I'm guessing that if she does do that, it will depend on the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats get trounced as the prevailing wings seem to indicate, she might very well shake the dust of this admin off her shoes and mount her own insurgency.

The economy is going to make or break this guy and he spent his first year pissing away every bit of political capital he had on health care when first and foremost in the electorate's mind was JOBS.

As much as I disliked her, I don't imagine Hillary could have been worse than this novice.

In a strange reversal of conventional wisdom, black Americans coming together as one unified political bloc has actually worked against them. They are now owned lock, stock and barrel by a Party that couldn't care less about them as individuals. I don't see it changing any time soon, but I have to suspect that the 95% of black Americans who vote Dem will eventually wake up to the reality that they have a better option.

At what time will Hillary smell blood in the water, resign, and then start to mount her challenge.

History will probably point to when the AP called the race for Brown. However, knowing what we do about the Clitons, I'm betting it was weeks and weeks earlier when they started doing "what-if" sessions about a GOP victory in MA.

Look at it this way. Suppose the President is thoroughly pissed that she wasn't there last night. Suppose he's pissed at her about anything. He has lost the political clout to do anything about it. If she resigns, or if there's even a whisp of a conflict between them, it will look far, far worse for the President.

Alito is a symbol of the problem we all have with Obama. Obama is unable to tell us anything that is not a master full display of his power to charm us with known lies. That is a display of arrogance by Obama that has built up to a hostility towards him. He is morphing himself into a Chavez and his enemies show. Now no one believes Obama can change. His friends are also running away from him because even crooks need to follow a leader that they can trust.

As a CEO, I often have to give "state of the company" speeches to our employees. The idea that I would pick out, people or divisions in the company and criticize them or their work in such a venue would be incredibly stupid, and counter productive. Even if true, it would be seen as small, and I would lose the trust and respect of those not criticized as well as make saboteurs of those I did. It certainly would not motivate anyone and would destroy the team spirit that makes organized human effort effective. It's just bad leadership. That's what you get when you choose a leader who has never lead anything.

I don't understand why we expect ANYONE to sit motionless like a statue while they are attacked. They're not furniture and this is not some religious ceremony. Disrespect and lies should get a reaction in a free society.

Alito should not have reacted even though our buffoon president is completely wrong

I'm betting it was purely reflexive considering how completely wrong Obama got it. I suppose Alito assumed Obama, being a Constituional lawyer and all that was just stunned by his ignorance of the law.

Sorry but I don't think the SOTU should be a forum where you can just stand up and lie your ass off and everyone should just sit like 5th graders and nod.

This is what annoys the hell out of me about the pro-censorship crowd. They assume that the public is so weak minded that they will be swayed by the number of times a message is broadcast rather than the content of the message itself. They fundamentally have no regard for the intelligence of the citizenry. They really do think they are smarter.

As I stated before the visual of directly criticizing the Supreme Court while they had to sit there stone-faced and surrounded by applauding Dems was not good. And that's without the Alito lip reading.

And on a related note (I watched the speech on CNN) How many frigging cameras did they have for this speech?

At one point we got the Alfred Hitchcock downward shot from the top of the ceiling. When are we going to get the super slow mo and that cool 3-D moving the still shot effects that we get on NFL coverage.

And we need more microphones too. I want to hear what Joe and Nancy are talking about; what John McCain said during the speech.

And I want to read the note passed to Speaker Pelosi during the speech. Was it one of those Joe Wilson likes you and wants to ask you on a date kind of notes or was it a Pick up some Chinese on the way home tonite. kind of notes....inquiring minds want to know!

Obama takes a lofty, non partisan stance in a way that invites a partisan response. He flogs his opponents with an olive branch and calls their yelps disrespectful. The birth of a new tradition: From now on only Justices appointed by Democrats will attend Obama's SOTUS. They will listen to his pleas for non-partisan solutions to the nation's problems with proper respect.

Original Mike said: They assume that the public is so weak minded that they will be swayed by the number of times a message is broadcast rather than the content of the message itself.

But you know what Mike, they have a right to assume that. What was Obama's message during the campaign? Hope and Change. Rinsed, repeated and an occasional spin cycle but pretty much the same. Heavy on the symbolism and light on the substance. Yet the electorate bought it.

I think what Obama has missed the boat on is that most people are over Bush and are actually expecting Obama to start earning his pay. I know myself, if I was still blaming my predecessor I'd be unemployed right now.

No white President was ever treated with such contempt by members of Congress or the judiciary. Sorry, but the racism is obvious. On both occasions Obama spoke the truth as well, and in fact, was not even saying anything controversial. Now you might think that foreign governments should be able to bankroll political commercials as a matter of free speech, but the FACT is that that they know can. Without any spending limits whatsoever. That's indisputable and that's all that Obama said. Now whether they SHOULD be able to do that is a legitimate point of debate.

The racism is obvious. Not a surprise. The vast majority of white Americans are racists.

Oh Yes! Amazing that Alito's petulance got the most attention from RIGHT WING BLOGS! Who could have guessed that RIGHT WING BLOGGERS THAT HATE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA would focus on this trivial detail of the State of the Union? I mean, what a crazy revelation! And shouldn't Obama just resign now, because of the Memeorandum???

Former solicitor general Ted Olson, the litigator for the plaintiff in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, tells National Review Online that President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision during the State of the Union was a “disappointing attack on our independent judiciary.”

“Other presidents have spoken out and scolded the Court before, usually liberals, like Franklin Roosevelt,” says Olson. “It’s not appropriate. Presidents should respect the justices.” The Citizens United case, he adds, “was not about corporations taking over the political process, but enabling everyone to participate in the political process and protecting free speech.”

"...As many of us have argued around here for a while, conservatives aren't obsessed with Obama's race, liberals are. That's why we've had so many asinine, nasty, and ignorant charges of racism hurled at Obama's critics. There's a certain species of liberal that can't get over Obama's race. They assume that conservatives can't get over it either and so criticism of Obama from the Right must — ---according to Olbermannesque thinking — stem from some evil desire to see a "black man fail" or some other idiocy. I think it's nice that we have a black president as do most conservatives I know. I just don't think it's the most important thing in the world. Nor do I think that his blackness makes bad liberal ideas suddenly good. Black men, too, are wrong when they say 2+2 is 5."

dtl: "Now you might think that foreign governments should be able to bankroll political commercials as a matter of free speech, but the FACT is that that they know can. Without any spending limits whatsoever. That's indisputable and that's all that Obama said."

Uh.. no. The president's statement is false. As in, he lied.

Quoting Bradley Smith, Law Professor, from The Corner:

"The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.

Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind."

So, let me get this straight... our POTUS is railing against foreign influence in US elections. This would be the same President who 1) explicitly turned off all security controls on his donation site so that there was absolutely no donor validation in place and 2) took donations from at least one foreigner that we know of - his aunt. He did return that money. How many more were there?

F15C, my money is on demogoguery. And this is an interesting way for the Democrats to attack this ruling (claiming that it will allow those damned ferrunners to influence our elections) given the contributions that Clinton received from China, and that Gore received from Tibetan monks with no earthly possessions.

So are the lefties asserting that Alito was wrong and the President correct in the matter of foreign corporations being able to influence campaigns legally? For once I hope that the lefties are right. But would that be racist?

I have a picture of myself with a Leinies t-shirt on, holding a Leinies at Miller Park, taken in 2008. I'd put it in my profile, but the picture would probably come out too small to appreciate. I need one of those flickr things.

Has there been an Obama speech yet where the focus has been *words he actually spoke in the speech*, and not either attempts by his sychophants to spin obvious mistatements or a negative reaction from the crowd?

Anyone? Bueller?

(I did have to laugh at the line the local fishwrapper chose to put in bold type above the fold .. "I don't quit". Hey, Barry, Mr. I-d-rather-have-only-one-good-term, did anybody but you say that you were?)

If Mr Obama is concerned about corporate contributions, can any of our left wings commentators explain to me why Mr Obama failed to accept public financing of his campaign to be president?

Mr Obama is the end result of affirmative action. And its not a pretty sight. I would rather have Al Sharpton as the first black president. The guy is gutsy, funny, and otherwise outrageous. And somehow I think he would do better job that this piece of shit we have now. And at least Al Sharpton bathes every day.

well it goes to glenn reynold overarching point in an army of davids. more than ever, the little guy can stand up to the big guy and win the argument.

Its all ironic, then that just as the supreme court showed it understood better than ever the necessity of money and business organization in order to facilitate speech, the world is changing to make that stuff much less important than ever in this country. mass media doesn't require mass effort or massive amounts of money. Dan rather can be taken down by a handful of bloggers. in their pajamas.

And, the "I don't quit" line is particularly jarring. This from the guy who wants to cut and run from two different countries.

> Why are you liberals so frightened of what, for example, the Saudis have to say?

Well, more than that, even if citizens united came out the other way, the saudis could still fund corporate speech that engaged in electioneering. we don't shut down Al Jazeera just because it is a terrorist loving foreign network.

Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker.

Wow, what predictable, ridiculous, tripe.

I thought Joe Wilson was being rude, but if Obama takes every opportunity he has to say rude things about someone who disagrees with him, well, I think we're about to the point that people should start walking out of his speeches.

OF COURSE liberals are afraid of freedom of speech. That's why liberals have long opposed the actions of the ACLU, that famous conservative organization, whenever it litigates freedom of speech cases across the land. Liberals are also known for banning books in public libraries because they mention homosexuality or paganism.

In fact, as proper conservatives, you should probably send in a check to the ACLU right now.

In fact, as proper conservatives, you should probably send in a check to the ACLU right now.

Why? There's ample documented evidence of the ACLU turning a blind eye from defending conservative speech. The fact that they defend "unsavory" speech like Nazis and NAMBLA doesn't make up for it.

Consider political correctness. PC is nothing but a widespread, INSTITUTIONALIZED, attempt to control speech and is wholly a construct of liberal academia.

I personally think PC is having its last gasp (thank God), but I think a lot of the bullshit we've been putting with for the last 30 years, on both sides, is going to start petering out as the Boomers shuffle of this mortal coil.

Well, you see, when those donations start flooding in from our enemies and they are all for Democratic candidates, we are gonna have a bit of a problem with the American voters.

It isn't about donations. The ruling was about the ability of corporations AND anyone else to have the right to free speech.

Purchasing an advertisement, publishing a magazine, publishing a newspaper, publishing a book or in the case in hand....making a documentry are forbidden because of McCain Feingold. This is a clear violation of the free speech clause.

Instead of the money being donated, as it is now, to 527 groups or directly to the sleazy campaigns of the sleazy congress critters, the PEOPLE and corporations can just put their money where their mouth is and buy an advertisement to promote their own issues.

This applies to the Unions, the Tea Party groups, Ma and Pa Fricket and anyone else who desires to make their voice heard.

The Supreme Court just did us ALL a huge favor by allowing anyone and everyone the right to free speech.

Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President -- with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

"In fact, as proper conservatives, you should probably send in a check to the ACLU right now."

I thought that the ACLU agreed with the SCOTUS and Alito on this one.

They aren't automatically and always wrong, you know.

In the earlier years of homeschooling the homeschool legal defense organization, or one of their lawyers anyway, said that when you went to court what you really wanted was a judge who had previously been a lawyer for the ACLU because they understood the Constitutional issues.

They take up some twisted causes from time to time, seem to seek them out even. And I think they've earned their reputation as being aggressively socially liberal.

But how does that equate to a need to oppose them no matter what and without regard to whatever the particular issue is?

The way things are going I can see a switch happening. Because instead of liberals saying "Yay! The conservatives are comming down hard on the side of free speech and liberty and keeping the government out of our lives!" it's something more like "Ack! Conservative cooties! Change what we believe in quick! Before the popular kids see us sitting at the same lunch table as the nerds!"

Right. For example, there was that most important part of the address where Obama evidently spoke very softly and said:

"The American people are sick to death of the graft and corruption surrounding congressional earmarks. Consequently, I will veto each appropriations bill with earmarks that crosses my desk. I will also publish the names and details behind the earmarks that gave rise to the veto."

He spoke so softly that I didn't hear it, but he did say that -- didn't he? Didn't he?

As I pointed out here last week, the Republican Supreme Court decision allows foreign governments owning corporations in the US - think Citgo - to influence elections.

I bet you exhibited similar outrage when Chavez was trying to buy favors with cheap heating oil too right Alpha? Oh and you don't have much to say about the lack of credit card validation for Barry's campaign contributions. I'm sure those millions of non-US citizens didn't kick in a few bucks either did they.

Yes, Glenn Greenwald makes other good points about the deeply partisan nature of the Republicans on the Supreme Court:

What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity. Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney, dubiously refuses to recuse himself from a lawsuit challenging the legality of Cheney's actions, and then rules in Cheney's favor. Scalia has an increasing tendency to make highly politicized comments about purely political conflicts, most recently defending torture in an interview with 60 Minutes. As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements -- even parading himself around on Rush Limbaugh's radio program -- and turned himself into the food fight of the week between Democrats and Republicans .

Say it, Glenn!

Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice. While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either. And, as usual, the disingenuousness levels are off the charts: imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush's State of the Union address. .

There are two things about this episode that bother me. The first is that Obama knew the justices were present in the chamber, and if he had the brains of a cockroach he would have realized the downside risk of his remarks. He wasn't precisely inviting the response he got, but he was unthinking enough to set the stage for it.

The second is more serious in my estimation. The justices ruled on a Constitutional question, which I understand to mean that it cannot be overturned except by amending the Constitution itself. Yet the President asked for Congress to pass an ordinary law to overturn the ruling. As a former Con Law professor, you'd think he would know better, wouldn't you?

His rude criticism of the Supreme Court while they were sitting there is akin to his claim that his agenda is not being enacted due to politics. In fact, Mr. President, your opponents have deep seated objections to the policies. We think your health care bill will seriously damage health care in this country. To suggest that we are not "working" with you out of political motives is frankly, insulting.

Yet the President asked for Congress to pass an ordinary law to overturn the ruling. As a former Con Law professor, you'd think he would know better, wouldn't you? .

No, you are wrong. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court chose not to address the question of foreign-owned corporations influencing elections. Because they left it an open question when granting corporations the rights of citizenship it is a loophole that the Saudis, Russians, whoever could exploit.

you could always search on "foreign" in the opinion. but that would be employing facts and logic. Not the practice of Republicans!

Damn that firebrand Alito--what a douchebag responding to a personal attack on his institution, an attack that was supported by a lie by the president of the united states--god- the temerity of that guy--say, his name ends in a vowel--I bet he's a wop and probably a mackerel snapper--Fortunately, he has life time tenure--kind of like our hostess here--so he can stick it to da man every year.

but we dont want to make a partisan issue of this. As Alpha said, Alito lacks judicial temperament--Of course it is manifest that Obama lacks presidential temperament let alone qualifications or ability.

It goes like this: Conservatives hate Chavez and think he's a scary communist... so lets bring up Chavez and they can't say anything.

But anyone paying attention knows that the arguments against the "Republican" SCOTUS ruling are the same arguments as Chavez makes and the same justifications that Chavez offers to restrict freedom of the press in his country.

Anyone so much as claiming that Chavez is a "bad guy" has to admit the correlation. Or they don't think he's a bad guy at all.

The arguments about why the SCOTUS ruling is bad rest on the exact same arguments that Chavez makes. Chavez, after all, is simply defending the people against the wealthy businesses and corporations who fund the radio and television stations and bank roll the opposition in Venezuela.

So essentially all bringing up Citgo or Chavez does is illustrate and high-light that the SCOTUS ruling prevents and forbids the same behavior and excuses for silencing the opposition in the US.

The only reason I can imagine for not realizing this is that the person bringing up Chavez because he is a conservative boogy-man, personally approve of Chavez and the twists of logic he uses to justify intimidation, control, censorship and silencing of the media and the press.

Chavez is a good guy trying to help the people, opposing the corporations and greedy businesses who only care about profit and shutting down the wealthy so that the people can be heard.

What's not to like and support?

Chavez is even progressive enough to insist on *positive* rights to freedom of speech by requiring that the corporations and media companies and those motivated by greed are not able to silence the people by choosing not to run his speeches. He refuses to let them control the dialog that way. So all networks now have to broadcast his speeches. They can't refuse or he shuts them down.

What's not to like about that? The people have a right to speak and they have a right to listen and those nasty corporations and rich dudes want to take that right away by deciding *themselves* what people should be able to hear. Chavez shut that down! People ought to have the right to decide for themselves.

Now... that silly dystopian movie hog-wash where the law forbids turning off the television set.

One problem with the ACLU is that they are not monolithic. There is a national organization, and then there are state organizations, and they often seem to be running against each other.

So, yes, you find them on the free speech side of some issues, but then you find them on the liberal side of other issues that just happen to be against free speech (e.g. hate speech laws). It is not that the organization is schizoid, but rather, you have different organizations with different agendas, loosely linked, all under one name.

Alpha Liberal, who the fuck cares? Seriously, why are you so fucking afraid of freedom of speech and so hell bent on controlling it?

Congress shall pass no law...

The founding fathers knew about foreign countries meddling and were worried about it, but chose to not limit free speech because they knew that any stated limit would be abused by the government and would ultimately reduce our rights, not enhance them.

If the Saudis want to run ads supporting whoever, let them! I am not afraid. Why are you?

His rude criticism of the Supreme Court while they were sitting there is akin to his claim that his agenda is not being enacted due to politics. In fact, Mr. President, your opponents have deep seated objections to the policies. We think your health care bill will seriously damage health care in this country. To suggest that we are not "working" with you out of political motives is frankly, insulting.

So much word. This needed to be repeated.

Some people in this country need to take a very deep breath and realize that sometimes, someone might just disagree with you. It doesn't make them evil, racist, unfeeling, or hate-filled. It means they have an opinion, just like you do. God, that is probably the thing I hate most about politics. And it's beginning to be one of the things I hate most about Obama.

> Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event

Um, flamboyantly?

> Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

Democrats have politicized the supreme court for years. They have openly declared that their justices won’t have to follow the constitution, but can make up whatever “rights” they hallucinate into it. by transforming the supreme court into a super-legislature, the left has made its composition more politicized than ever.

The fact was that if the president didn’t want alito disagreeing with him, he shouldn’t have LIED about what the supreme court actually said.

Synova

> I thought that the ACLU agreed with the SCOTUS and Alito on this one.

Yes, they did.

> Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney

You think sotomayor never attended a party with the president?

> As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements

By telling his life story. How evil of him.

> Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice.

To their face? In the SOTU?

> While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either.

Of course he doesn’t mention the precedents because they were considered pretty horrible.

> As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements

By telling his life story. How evil of him.

> Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice.

To their face? In the SOTU?

> While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either.

Of course he doesn’t mention the precedents because they were considered pretty horrible.

> imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush's State of the Union address.

Republicans are hypocrits because… I am pretty sure they would react differently if the shoe was on the other foot!

> No, you are wrong. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court chose not to address the question of foreign-owned corporations influencing elections. Because they left it an open question when granting corporations the rights of citizenship it is a loophole that the Saudis, Russians, whoever could exploit.

No, you are wrong. The law presently bans foreigners from electioneering, and thus foreign companies, too.

Second, the Saudis already had a loophole. The could have just bought out NBC and filled the airwaves with whatever message they wanted, including electioneering.

That is one of the fatal flaws in that ruling. It was both overinclusive and under inclusive. Corporations were banned from electioneering, except so-called media companies. Except of courst Citizens United was by any rational measure a media company but they were not allowed to speak. But at the same time, Michael Moore and Disney, were allowed to put out and promote Fahrenheit 9/11. Would you care to explain to me why Fahrenheit was kosher and Hillary: the Movie was verboten?

Notice that you liberals always want to ignore the facts of the actual case before us, when making their arguments. That is because when you look at what happened in that case, a company that engages in nothing but free speech, being silenced because it dared to speak against a specific candidate, all of your theory suddenly is revealed as the fascist sham it really is.

But go on with your fictions. “This isn’t banning speech, just expenditures.” Well, if you want to show an ad, its kind of hard to do it without expending money.

“Only real people have freedom of speech.” Oh, then I am allowed to ban speech by the Democratic party, then? Because they aren’t a real person, but they speak all the time. And for that matter in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times Company, a corporation, in its right to express itself. So I guess that was wrongly decided, right?

But the biggest error there is that the left explicitly says that they don’t want corporations to speak because they don’t like what they think they can say. In doing so, they urinate all over Justice Jackson’s declaration that “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics.”

And for all the endless talk of corruption, the left never even notices the corruption that is inherent when Congress decides who may or may not speak in regard to their own elections. Because above all else, across all partisan lines, Congress will support any rule that makes sure the incumbents keep their jobs. Maybe you are fool enough to trust congress with this kind of power, but I am not.

What did Justice Alito say? All I saw was he shook his head and mouthed something. Maybe he took a shower before the speech and had water in his ear? That is so annoying.

Let me get this straight--the objection is that foreign companies are now allowed to buy advertising in the U.S., in which they criticize our politicians? And that's somehow a threat to our freedom?

1) If Hyundai buys up tons of ads, with "paid for by Hyundai," how are the American people uninformed about where that's coming from?

2) Even if Hyundai isn't identified (Did the Supreme Court rule that the government couldn't even insist on that? I doubt it.), doesn't the ad stand or fall on whether it's a persuasive argument?

Since when are persuasive arguments a threat to free elections--because the wrong person makes them? It seems to me the same folks who object to them furriners being involved here, are the very ones who love the idea of using foreign law to interpret our law! Isn't that curious?

Of course, we all remember how President Steve Forbes and President Ross Perot before him, were able to use their vast fortunes to buy the presidency...

Here Obama went all in and forcefully supported Chavez's fellow Zaleya through one revelation after another, even that Zaleya had certified results of an unconstitutional election/referendum that hadn't even happened yet that showed that he'd won. And Obama stuck by him most strongly, revoking travel privileges to Honduran officials and other stern actions. Because, after all, Zelaya was talking about the will of the people, and what is a Constitution compared to that? The fact that it was blindingly obvious that Zelaya wanted to become the Chavez of Honduras wasn't an issue, because what's not to like about Chavez? He'd been shutting down opposition media for years before Obama was all chummy with him. One can only assume approval.

And what does he get for his trouble?

Chavez hating on America and on Obama at Copenhagen and talking about how he stinks of the devil.

> Even if Hyundai isn't identified (Did the Supreme Court rule that the government couldn't even insist on that? I doubt it.),

Actually they did specifically apply and uphold the disclosure rules. Although I think Thomas’s dissent on the topic is interesting, especially as it bears on their decision in regard to the prop 8 trial.

> Chavez hating on America and on Obama at Copenhagen and talking about how he stinks of the devil.

Well, to be fair, do you think Obama wants Chavez to openly endorse him? I am sure after Chavez started saying nice things, Obama called him up, and said, “Dude, you are totally screwing me up. Look, the American people don’t like you. I like you. But the American people don’t. so please keep your admiration for me on the down-low, k?”

We wouldn't "forget" that Obama was male, or tall, or what he looks like, including the color of his skin.

I clicked through and read Ta-Nenisi Coates at the Atlantic who asked what we'd think if in a conversation about the NFL someone said, after we were smart about it, "Wow, I forgot you were a woman!"

It wouldn't be a compliment.

It's insulting to imply that a woman transcended her woman-ness to comment intelligently on sports and it's insulting to imply that a black person transcended his or her race to speak intelligently of politics.

Someone doesn't forget your color or height or sex or age or weight... they just don't put importance on it. Matthews, whatever his explanations, always did.

Coates' comments on this are really good up until the insistence that people who claim they never *did* notice race need to admit their racism. But I believe that for a great many people it really is that unimportant, no matter what anyone says. Coates said that Obama can't be post-racial, every one else needs to be. I think that's true... but if it is, people have to be allowed to be and when they say they don't base their opinions on race and they don't put importance on race... they ought to be believed.

I don't see a black man standing behind the podium, I see Obama. I can't get distracted from the fact that he is black or have my attention pulled away from the fact that he is black because that is not where my attention is to start with.

Forgetting is like forgetting to stop at the store to get milk and a loaf of bread. You can't *forget* if you had no plans to go to the store.

I used to inhabit Coates' blog. It wasn't until the whole American black vs immigrant black affluence thing boiled up that I left in disgust. All in all, he's a decent guy and we've traded emails privately about this and that since, mostly PC gaming related :)

The best observation made so far about Matthews obvious and strangely unshocking comment is the question, "what did Obama do to remind Matthews that he was black again?"

and only nine times in the past century or so, have presidents confronted the supreme court during such a speech:

but only harding, fdr and reagan were the only three who really took aim at the Court specifically -- harding to advocate the repeal of court decisions outlawing child labor in America (really); fdr to pressure the court to get out of the way of the New Deal; and reagan to urge the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer. (duh)

I think that the standing ovation Obama got from, I would brave a guess, the Dems in Congress right after Obamas words and Alito's reaction was pretty damning. That shows that President Obama is not alone in his obuse of Contitution. Democrates elite supports him pretty enthusiasticly.

Do not believe a single "fact" that Jeremy spits out, and don't attempt to argue without verfication first (and actually reading any supposed sources he cites).

This is the entire section of Reagan's SOTU speech on school prayer:

And let me add here: so many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being -- yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment. (Applause.)

This is what Jeremy is charachtering as "taking aim at the Court" and "calling the Court out by name."

Do not engage him, it is pointless. He does not even attempt to argue in good faith.

> i also think congress is going to try to tweak the decision to make sure foreign corporations are not allowed much leeway...

Given that the law currently already does that, they will be wasting their time. but given that this congress generally does more harm than good on any subject, that is probably a good thing.

> if you and others here don't think this will open the door to massive corporate interference in elections...that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

What I think is that the fundamental flaw in that criticism is that it assumes you have the right to prevent that outcome. The first amendment means that congress cannot control the direction of the debate. It cannot silence certain voices out of fear that they will be believed.

But I challenge you to justify what happened to Citizens United. I challenge you to explain why Disney could create and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, but Citizens United could not do the same for Hillary: the Movie.

i personally think obama was right and that alito should have sat without comment, just as his fellow justices did.

Why? What law says that Justices aren't allowed to express disapproval when slandered and lied about? What purpose would that serve?

Being dignified is one thing. Getting slapped in the face is another. I think if all the Justices immediately gasped and cried out "liar" that they would be fully justified.

The only reason that congressmen can't do that is because they have to abide by the rules of the House and Senate or be ousted. Justices have no such problems. I doubt they would be impeached and convicted over it, and that is the only thing in the world that can be done to them, legally.

But I challenge you to justify what happened to Citizens United. I challenge you to explain why Disney could create and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, but Citizens United could not do the same for Hillary: the Movie.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.

aaron - between you and the t-man i don't which one is most lacking in reading comprehension.

as i said before: i'm not "claiming" or "characterizing" anything.

what i posted relates to the few times presidents have mentioned directly or taken the court to task during such a sotu speech.

if you don't find what i posted interesting, don't fucking read it.

and why is the NYT's suddenly your bastion of truth? you and the rest of the wing nuts here constantly bash the publication as some kind of liberal tool...or is that only when they don't print something with which you agree?

and...once again: if you and others here think it's a good idea for corporations to have the same rights as individual citizens i think you're dead wrong.

I think it's funny that the president who went to Germany to make a campaign speech, and who took money from George Soros and unions (and disdained public campaign finance) is making this big stink. Obama doesn't pay much attention to what he says as opposed to what he does, does he?

i always love the way the local wingnuts try to present their arguments in favor of the supreme court's decisions...as if the decisions were 9-0 or 8-1 or 7-2 or even 6-3...and that it's just obvious they must be correct in every respect.

but they're not.

it's become a 5-4 court, with the conservative members voting in lockstep as the majority on almost ever contentious issue at hand.

you only agree because they're voting the way YOU want them to...and of course, you always favor anything that is not favorable to our president.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.

Isn't this what the Court just changed? Wasn't that the point of the lawsuit? That the FEC has not the right to censor or restrict free speech....no matter WHO is speaking. That the Government can't pick and choose who gets to speak, advertise, publish based on who they are or what they want to say.

> Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.

Really? What did Moore do that Citizens United didn’t?

Jeremy

> if you don't find what i posted interesting, don't ... read it.

Its not a matter of interest, but credibility.

> and why is the NYT's suddenly your bastion of truth?

Because any admission that the conservatives are right anything is an admission against interest and bias.

> if you and others here think it's a good idea for corporations to have the same rights as individual citizens i think you're dead wrong.

The first amendment doesn’t apply solely to those you wish to hear, but to those you don’t wish to hear. And normally you liberals get that. that is why liberals correctly think that flag burning and nazi marches in jewish neighborhoods are protected under the first amendment.

But apparently you wouldn’t extend to Walmart the same courtesy you extend to the American Nazi party.

> you only agree because they're voting the way YOU want them to

Indeed I do. I believe that the first amendment is sacrosanct and I am glad that 5 justices agreed, and I am disappointed that 4 didn’t.

> and of course, you always favor anything that is not favorable to our president.

Actually, at the time it was released, Hillary the Movie probably would have helped Obama.

By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain why Hillary the Movie was verboten, but Fahrenheit 9/11 was kosher.

In what universe, and by what measure, did Alito's headshake "outweigh" the state of the union?

It didn't. You could say that Althouse is "lying," but the post is too sloppy and lazy to merit being called a lie.

I'd call it a brain fart.

And yet, it is "The Left" that is losing its mind. And Obama is about to have a breakdown, because he looked into the mirror on Flickr, and the great right-wing artists of history are looking down and laughing.